A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You appear to be interested in promoting your own 'spiritual' prowess and invalidating the 'spiritual' prowess of others, be they alive or dead Bob and I can't see the value in it.

Can we get past the advertising campaign please?

To me,
breathing happens,
heartbeat happens,
vision happens,
smelling happens,
hearing happens,
tactile happens,
taste happens,
thinking happens,

all happening without assistance from a 'me'.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Bob Michael »

Dennis Mahar wrote:You appear to be interested in promoting your own 'spiritual' prowess and invalidating the 'spiritual' prowess of others, be they alive or dead Bob and I can't see the value in it.
Yes, and I'm going to continue along these lines, Dennis, and regardless of who does or doesn't like it or see the value in it. Though I'm really promoting (or pointing out) the 'Truth' rather than my own spiritual prowess. My spiritual prowess just happens to be vital to the process, the doing.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Bob Michael »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
To me,

breathing happens,
heartbeat happens,
vision happens,
smelling happens,
hearing happens,
tactile happens,
taste happens,
thinking happens,

all happening without assistance from a 'me'.
What about your ACTIONS? Do they happen too without assistance from a 'me'. And who is the me at the top of your list?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

I get it Bob.
you have a project...the Ark.
you have to 'sell' yourself.
to 'sell' yourself, you have to invalidate others. Salesmanship 101.
Salesmanship happens.
What about your ACTIONS? Do they happen too without assistance from a 'me'. And who is the me at the top of your list?
There's not a breath drawn, nor a puff of wind, nor a blade of grass, nor a human being
that is not God.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Bob Michael »

Dennis Mahar wrote:I get it Bob. you have a project...the Ark.
Yes, and the project is not going all that well at the moment. Though the blueprints are finally right.
Dennis Mahar wrote:You have to 'sell' yourself. To 'sell' yourself, you have to invalidate others. Salesmanship 101. Salesmanship happens.
There's no "salesmenship" here, I'm merely along for the ride. And people "invalidate" themselves. I simply point this fact out.
Dennis Mahar wrote:There's not a breath drawn, nor a puff of wind, nor a blade of grass, nor a human being that is not God.
Such is very true of myself too, my friend! Though if what you're trying to point out here is that we're all God's children, as I hear all-too-often, count me out please.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Tomas wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:
To have a particular opinion, view, belief, idea, or feeling about someone or something.
What's prior to 'opinion, view, belief, idea, or feeling' ?
The Garden of Eden (with Adam & Eve) before Satan set about his duties.
Tomas, I relate to the use of metaphysical metaphors of Self, or I Am, which to me, is the enlightenment genius of the bible. Jesus was a master of living Self metaphors, and to a lesser degree, Eckhart, who is the subject of this thread. What Jesus realized that was an extension of his ancestral line of DNA purging of self, is that the metaphor of I Am or Self extends beyond The Garden of Eden, and that this metaphorical Self is not a person or thing, but rather, is an impersonal Self of laws, principles and patterns of thought Paul metaphorically called "the law of the Spirit of life." What Paul realized of his Christ enlightenment, which is critical to understanding my response to your response to Dennis above, is "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

In relating Paul's wisdom to your statement that what is prior to belief, view and opinion is The Garden of Eden, I would agree with your cosmological position within the total vision of Self, but what I put to you is that there is even a higher wisdom position even than this. The Garden of Eden is a pattern of thought, yes, that of the natural world of sense, of breath, of man as an extension of his spirit, that of being a living soul, extended further into the human intellect of Adam/Eve, but the higher wisdom is in the seeing of who or what is the planter of The [thought] Garden of all these formed things. Who/what is the thought planter of breath and all that emanates from this planting? The Lord God. Who/what is the Lord God? The law of [belief in] sin and death, the law of dualism, the law of causality. This law is metaphorically addressed early in Genesis 2, verse 6: But there went up a mist from the earth...

Wisdom of logic tells us in order for the thought of sin and death, for the doubting thought "but" to be planted in man's consciousness, there must be a higher law that is its cause. What then is this higher creation law of the cause of "but" and what is the metaphor of Self that prevents its revelation? The higher creation law of cause is the law of the Spirit of life, the metaphor of Father Consciousness or the Spirit of God of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 up until verse 5. What is the metaphor of Self that prevents it being revealed to the Lord God/Adam/Eve/serpent? Genesis 3:24: "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." So, out of the principle of ignorance and the principle of the sense of self preservation, the Lord God of self blocked his own mind of the truth of his Infinite Self - in other words, so that his Garden of the [false] power of 'dust manipulation' could continue, he denied the core truth of himself.

Which means the highest wisdom answer to Dennis' question of what is prior to belief, opinion and view is that which created the the planter [the former] of The Garden of Eden, that of the of the [infinite] Spirit of life. What Eckhart realized is what Jesus realized, which is that the emanation of the law of sin and death [the creature emanation] within the law of the Spirit of life [the Infinite Self] must be fulfilled in every man's consciousness before he can be transformed of this emanation and be moved by the law of the Spirit of life ???

How is conscious activity of transcending the law of the breath activated? By stilling the flaming turning sword of the Cherubims and inquiring as to 'what' is beyond its flaming and turning. Be still and know that I am God.

What is so brilliant about the wisdom of God as infinite laws, principles and patterns of thought is the wisdom that no law can be broken. Any attempt to do so is to bring needless suffering upon one's being. The law of dualism is a law that cannot be broken. Think of man and woman comes along for the ride. Think of good and evil comes along for the ride. A law cannot be broken, this is truth, however, a law can, and of the principle of expansion of the law of the Spirit of life, is purposed to be transcended. And here we are, full circle to the how this is to be accomplished, which is of being transformed of thought from the sense intellect of logic of self into the spirit wisdom of metaphor of Self. A transformation that is one of fire, of the bearing of of one's cross of self being burned away, so Self can BE.
Last edited by Pam Seeback on Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Bob Michael wrote:
Dennis Mahar wrote:You appear to be interested in promoting your own 'spiritual' prowess and invalidating the 'spiritual' prowess of others, be they alive or dead Bob and I can't see the value in it.
Yes, and I'm going to continue along these lines, Dennis, and regardless of who does or doesn't like it or see the value in it. Though I'm really promoting (or pointing out) the 'Truth' rather than my own spiritual prowess. My spiritual prowess just happens to be vital to the process, the doing.
Bob, if you have to put quotation marks around truth, it is not truth.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:I get it Bob.
you have a project...the Ark.
you have to 'sell' yourself.
to 'sell' yourself, you have to invalidate others. Salesmanship 101.
Salesmanship happens.
What about your ACTIONS? Do they happen too without assistance from a 'me'. And who is the me at the top of your list?
There's not a breath drawn, nor a puff of wind, nor a blade of grass, nor a human being
that is not God.
Dennis, why are you holding God captive in the breath, the wind, the blade of grass and the human being?
paco
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by paco »

jupiviv wrote:
Diebert wrote:Meister Eckhart met a beautiful naked boy.
He asked him where he came from.
He said: 'I come from God.'
If Michael Jackson's gone to heaven, he must be having a hell of a time.
Heaven & Hell. Well,,,,,,,,There was only One God in heaven. or, could there have been a second or third heaven.

Anyways.
I am illiterate
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bob Michael wrote:I think God (or the Truth) spoke very well to Meister Eckhart through the "great priest", and that Eckhart realized this fact.
The criticism and concern is essentially valid and heart felt but Eckhart proves by his reaction that he actually did meet people "where they are", embraced, kissed, and offered to hold confession in the end: this urging the priest to tell about his life of which the content remains untold. This is just another way to read the legend of course.

The question could also be put to you, since you seem to identify with the priest and his critique: please do tell us plainly about your life. It's hard to understand, at one hand you're objecting to the lack of effectiveness and elitism of certain teachers, on the other hand you're implying an even more lofty, more natural, more hard to achieve state of being?
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Bob Michael »

movingalways wrote:Bob, if you have to put quotation marks around truth, it is not truth.
I do such things to clearly emphasize a particular 'word', M/A.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Dennis, why are you holding God captive in the breath, the wind, the blade of grass and the human being?
Languaging captures.
that's the point if it.
just like you're captured and God is captured in your own conceptual framework.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Beingof1 »

Movingalways:
Tomas, I relate to the use of metaphysical metaphors of Self, or I Am, which to me, is the enlightenment genius of the bible. Jesus was a master of living Self metaphors, and to a lesser degree, Eckhart, who is the subject of this thread. What Jesus realized that was an extension of his ancestral line of DNA purging of self, is that the metaphor of I Am or Self extends beyond The Garden of Eden, and that this metaphorical Self is not a person or thing, but rather, is an impersonal Self of laws, principles and patterns of thought Paul metaphorically called "the law of the Spirit of life." What Paul realized of his Christ enlightenment, which is critical to understanding my response to your response to Dennis above, is "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

In relating Paul's wisdom to your statement that what is prior to belief, view and opinion is The Garden of Eden, I would agree with your cosmological position within the total vision of Self, but what I put to you is that there is even a higher wisdom position even than this. The Garden of Eden is a pattern of thought, yes, that of the natural world of sense, of breath, of man as an extension of his spirit, that of being a living soul, extended further into the human intellect of Adam/Eve, but the higher wisdom is in the seeing of who or what is the planter of The [thought] Garden of all these formed things. Who/what is the thought planter of breath and all that emanates from this planting? The Lord God. Who/what is the Lord God? The law of [belief in] sin and death, the law of dualism, the law of causality. This law is metaphorically addressed early in Genesis 2, verse 6: But there went up a mist from the earth...

Wisdom of logic tells us in order for the thought of sin and death, for the doubting thought "but" to be planted in man's consciousness, there must be a higher law that is its cause. What then is this higher creation law of the cause of "but" and what is the metaphor of Self that prevents its revelation? The higher creation law of cause is the law of the Spirit of life, the metaphor of Father Consciousness or the Spirit of God of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 up until verse 5. What is the metaphor of Self that prevents it being revealed to the Lord God/Adam/Eve/serpent? Genesis 3:24: "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." So, out of the principle of ignorance and the principle of the sense of self preservation, the Lord God of self blocked his own mind of the truth of his Infinite Self - in other words, so that his Garden of the [false] power of 'dust manipulation' could continue, he denied the core truth of himself.

Which means the highest wisdom answer to Dennis' question of what is prior to belief, opinion and view is that which created the the planter [the former] of The Garden of Eden, that of the of the [infinite] Spirit of life. What Eckhart realized is what Jesus realized, which is that the emanation of the law of sin and death [the creature emanation] within the law of the Spirit of life [the Infinite Self] must be fulfilled in every man's consciousness before he can be transformed of this emanation and be moved by the law of the Spirit of life ???

How is conscious activity of transcending the law of the breath activated? By stilling the flaming turning sword of the Cherubims and inquiring as to 'what' is beyond its flaming and turning. Be still and know that I am God.

What is so brilliant about the wisdom of God as infinite laws, principles and patterns of thought is the wisdom that no law can be broken. Any attempt to do so is to bring needless suffering upon one's being. The law of dualism is a law that cannot be broken. Think of man and woman comes along for the ride. Think of good and evil comes along for the ride. A law cannot be broken, this is truth, however, a law can, and of the principle of expansion of the law of the Spirit of life, is purposed to be transcended. And here we are, full circle to the how this is to be accomplished, which is of being transformed of thought from the sense intellect of logic of self into the spirit wisdom of metaphor of Self. A transformation that is one of fire, of the bearing of of one's cross of self being burned away, so Self can BE.
Absolutely profound. It lifted me to read these words.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Steady on B of I.
we all like to be uplifted by stories.
but let's not forget they are stories.
Pam hasn't actually achieved anything..she just has a Vision.
She has to get up every morning and do the rounds of the internet forums, telling the story over and over otherwise it will slip away.


Get it?
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Bob Michael »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The criticism and concern is essentially valid and heart felt but Eckhart proves by his reaction that he actually did meet people "where they are", embraced, kissed, and offered to hold confession in the end: this urging the priest to tell about his life of which the content remains untold. This is just another way to read the legend of course.
Here we continue to disagree and any further discussion of the matter would be a thing of vanity on my part, Diebert. And I needn't be 'right' with men, only with myself and God. Though again, I'll say that it remains my view that both the priest and Eckhart fell short of the full glory of the Infinite. Just as I still continue to do at times. Though not without being keenly self-critically aware of the fact.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The question could also be put to you, since you seem to identify with the priest and his critique: please do tell us plainly about your life. It's hard to understand, at one hand you're objecting to the lack of effectiveness and elitism of certain teachers, on the other hand you're implying an even more lofty, more natural, more hard to achieve state of being?
I constantly look for both the good and the ill in others, just as I do in myself. Not to condemn, belittle, or to feel superior to anyone, but in order to better discern what is and isn't righteous and sane human behavior and actions. Remembering here that the human species remains totally lost and complelely in the dark regarding it's true nature and full potential. And this relentless activity I find is very vital to my continuing spiritual development. While my organismal sensitivity continues to drive me towards spiritual perfection. I also speak to and interact with small groups of people on a daily basis, which is also valuable for my journey of self-realization, which is also the journey of God-realization. And ironically I find that God very often speaks and acts perfectly through even hopelessly lost souls, so I find it's very important to be open to the words and actions of 'everyone'. Though of course with discernment. To which I'll add that very, very few people are gifted with possessing the 'Art of Listening'. One of the reasons being that true listening (and seeing) is too horrifying and painful for most people to bear. As is a rigorously honest self-inventory. Hence it's more 'comfortable' for most people to live out their lives in the fog of self-delusion, which is really no life at all. Though there's surely plenty of company for such lost souls.

"The perfect man is pure Spirit." (Lao Tzu)

What a challenge! What a goal! What sheer joy and feelings of aliveness there is when one is such!

While: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." (H. D. Thoreau)

And little has changed since Henry's days.
User avatar
Getoriks
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:07 am

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Getoriks »

The gig's up, Bob. Any reader with discernment can tell you're one part walk and ninety-nine parts talk.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Bob Michael »

Getoriks wrote:The gig's up, Bob. Any reader with discernment can tell you're one part walk and ninety-nine parts talk.
The gig's only just begun my friend. And I'm not at all interested in mere "readers". They're a dime-a-dozen and count for nothing. Though I can't help but to wonder how you can possibly say such a thing when you know virtually nothing about me or my climb to the Infinite. Yet on the other hand I suppose I can.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:
Dennis, why are you holding God captive in the breath, the wind, the blade of grass and the human being?
Languaging captures.
that's the point if it.
just like you're captured and God is captured in your own conceptual framework.
Dennis, telling me that I have captured God is not evidence that I have captured God. Show me how I have captured God and then we'll talk.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Your story is character/plot driven with a villian and a win/loss challenge etc..
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Your story is character/plot driven with a villian and a win/loss challenge etc..
If there is one lesson to be learned on this board, is that reason serves a purpose on the road to enlightenment. So, I ask you, for both our sakes, to reason with me and break down my story of Father consciousness, Lord God consciousness, Adam/Eve consciousness and serpent consciousness to show me how this story is character/plot driven with a villian and a win/loss challenge, etc..
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Existence exists....certainty.

Sheer mystery.

Father consciousness is an idea, no certainty in it...story.
Adam/Eve is an idea, no certainty in it...story.
serpent consciousness is an idea, no certainty in it...story.

a 'daisy chain' of ideas arising together that tells a story containing characters that interact with each other in a sense of a plot.

Covering up the Mystery with a vapid drama.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Existence exists....certainty.

Sheer mystery.
You have given evidence to me that you don't believe the certainty of your existence is sheer mystery. The evidence is in your continuing to analyze your thought world as if it can be known to you.
Father consciousness is an idea, no certainty in it...story.
Adam/Eve is an idea, no certainty in it...story.
serpent consciousness is an idea, no certainty in it...story.

a 'daisy chain' of ideas arising together that tells a story containing characters that interact with each other in a sense of a plot.

Covering up the Mystery with a vapid drama.
Where did I say that the story of Father-Son was anything but a story? Did I not identify this story as being an example of the genius of metaphorical Self revelation?

I do not believe there is any law, principle and pattern of Pam that eternally remains a mystery to the spirit that now calls itself "Pam." How is this possible, when I am the infinity of the spirit of all my thoughts? "Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened."

Logic and reason took me to the door of Self wisdom, but it was not logic and reason that lead me to knock on the door, nor was it logic or reason that opened the door. Metaphorical contemplation of Self was my knock upon my door, was my turning of the knob of my door and was my walking over the threshold of my door. A walk of talk that I am purposed to share with those who are purposed to hear its essence, and perhaps, walk and talk its essence with me. No different than any other purposed walk of talk.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Where did I say that the story of Father-Son was anything but a story? Did I not identify this story as being an example of the genius of metaphorical Self revelation?
Father-Son, rising mist, the Lord God but etc.. is a fiction. good you agree.
It's identified. thankyou.

I can't see any genius in metaphor, parable etc..
We can move on from the stone age at last. what a relief.

Due to our divisive (subject-object) habit of thought, the average person tends to envision God in two particular ways: as an entity unto itself; and, as standing apart from oneself. Thus, the traditional depiction of God as Jehovah, “up there” somewhere, to whom one raises one’s eyes in supplication like a teenager asking dad for the car keys. Contemporary references to God as “Goddess” are the same kind of thinking, merely modified.


“Who sees not God everywhere”, as Meister Eckhart said, “sees God nowhere.” If the Almighty is indeed everywhere, that must include where you are standing. In other words, one who recognizes the nature of the Absolute recognizes that God is one’s own personage. But it is not to say that the Absolute is confined to any particular personage. The shrub outside of your window is no less God. The realization is not that you are God alone, but that you are—along with all else that is—God. To suppose that you were God alone would be to suppose that God is a singular entity, with the capacity to stand apart from other entities. Such is a notion which many orthodox religionists hold, which prohibits them from recognizing, and acknowledging, their own identity as God.

No one is more—or less—Godly than you.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Pam Seeback »

Father-Son, rising mist, the Lord God but etc.. is a fiction. good you agree.
It's identified. Thankyou.
The story of the Father-Son is the living story of you, of me, of every man. Replace the metaphors of Father or Son with Infinite and finite if you will, but the principle of being of myth and metaphor is the same.
I can't see any genius in metaphor, parable etc..
We can move on from the stone age at last. what a relief.
You speak as if you are not, right now, caught in the myth of self and of self's metaphorical, non-absolute world of projected thought. Myth and metaphor are not something "of the past", they are the present language experience of every man, for every man lives under the principle of impermanence of the law of relativity of "and." If you can give me one word of Dennis that is The [absolute] Truth of the thing Dennis is thinking about so that Pam can comprehend it exactly as Dennis experienced it in the moment of experiencing it, then I will acknowledge that you are not a myth of metaphors to yourself.
Due to our divisive (subject-object) habit of thought, the average person tends to envision God in two particular ways: as an entity unto itself; and, as standing apart from oneself.
I remain of this subject-object divide of thinking, as do you. It is precisely this belief in being split that makes our world not one of exactness, of absoluteness, but of relativity of myth and metaphor. This is why, if one desires to transcend their subject/object, metaphorical split permanently, that is to break free of the chains of causality and not return, they must psychologically identify with their Pure Awareness and not with their belief in being a projected, translated object to themselves. They must learn how to stand in the awareness of "being in the world, but not of the world."
Thus, the traditional depiction of God as Jehovah, “up there” somewhere, to whom one raises one’s eyes in supplication like a teenager asking dad for the car keys. Contemporary references to God as “Goddess” are the same kind of thinking, merely modified.
Dennis, your lack of understanding that you are the living myth of you and the living metaphors of this myth has caused you to interpret my wisdom of the myth of God and the metaphors of God as being of a God of religion or spirituality. I am not a Christian, nor am I spiritual. I am the seeker of the wisdom of my thought nature. Period.
“Who sees not God everywhere”, as Meister Eckhart said, “sees God nowhere.”
Eckhart also said: “When I flowed forth from God all creatures declared: “There is a God”, but this cannot make me blessed, for with this I acknowledge myself as a creature. But in my breaking through, where I stand free of my own will, of God's will, of all His works, and of God Himself, then I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature, but I am that which I was and shall remain for evermore.”
If the Almighty is indeed everywhere, that must include where you are standing.
It is true that every point is the spot of the God of you and the God of me, but which God is doing the on-the-spot thinking? The God of I AM or the God of I AM this and also that?
In other words, one who recognizes the nature of the Absolute recognizes that God is one’s own personage.
The God of his creature emanation, yes, believes himself of "personage." The God transcendent of his creature emanation believes no such thing, for he the Something that makes awareness of "personage" possible. This is the wisdom of the scripture “God is not a person that he should lie.”
But it is not to say that the Absolute is confined to any particular personage. The shrub outside of your window is no less God. The realization is not that you are God alone, but that you are—along with all else that is—God.
Do you see the problem when you say I am God [you are God] rather than I am of God? You are not God, Dennis, anymore than I am God, for although you can think upon the shrub as being a thing of God, you are not the reality of the awareness of being the thing “shrub.” You do not know what it is to be roots, stems, leaves that reach for the light of the sun until the sun is no more of your awareness of being “shrub.”

This is the greatest delusion of intellectual man, that of applying his intellect of his imagination to his God Realization. No wonder he gets caught in his own loop of “I am male = I am God.” Or “I am virtuous = I am God.” Or "I am a douchebag" = "I am God."
To suppose that you were God alone would be to suppose that God is a singular entity, with the capacity to stand apart from other entities. Such is a notion which many orthodox religionists hold, which prohibits them from recognizing, and acknowledging, their own identity as God.
Let me reiterate. As I write these words, I am not the Pure Awareness of God. Nor, as I write these words, do I understand you to be the Pure Awareness of God. It is not that we are separate from the Pure Awareness of God, this awareness is indeed within both you and I, but because this Pure Awareness of God thinking of God is covered of our awareness of space, time and matter, the creature emanation of which Eckhart speaks, we are not consciously aware of being the Pure Awareness of God thinking [infinitely, invisibly] of God.
No one is more—or less—Godly than you.
Never have I said this or even implied this. Since every seen and heard and smelled and touched and tasted thought is of God the Metaphor of the Reality of God, I do not acknowledge the absoluteness that is implied in any thought, least of all that of the thought “godly.” “Godly” is a term of self-righteousness that causes me, as the metaphor of me that is the Son of man, to want to puke.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: A Priest's Critique of Meister Eckhart (in full)

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Pam,

We are dealing with conceptual structures.

Duality is a conceptual structure.
Non-duality is a conceptual structure.

For practical purposes let each follow its respective course and see which is about right.

Existence is certain.
We ponder existence, as a move, to explain existence.

The explanations are Ideas.
Where do Ideas come from?
Locked